Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court.It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage.
Section 1986.1 of the CCP was introduced by Assembly member Carole Migden as AB 1860 during the 1999-2000 legislative session. [19] According to Assembly member Migden, the intent of the bill was to clarify the existing statutory and constitutional safeguards guaranteed to journalists under the shield law. [ 20 ]
However, in a later case where all members of the Court recused themselves when Governor Schwarzenegger sought a writ of mandate (Schwarzenegger v. Court of Appeal (Epstein)), seven justices of the Courts of Appeal were selected based on the regular rotational basis, not from the same district, with the most senior one serving as the acting ...
Technology trade association NetChoice, which emerged victorious in the Supreme Court in Moody v. Netchoice earlier this year, filed its lawsuit against SB 976, California’s social media age ...
The California Commission on Judicial Performance is responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct, judicial incapacity, and disciplining state judges, and is composed of 11 members, each appointed four-year terms: 3 judges appointed by the California Supreme Court, 4 members appointed by the governor (2 attorneys and 2 non ...
The litigation, filed directly in the California Supreme Court in an unusual move, comes as advocates have grown increasingly frustrated by the documented inability of many courts to find and hire ...
The Supreme Court of California is the highest judicial body in the state and sits at the apex of the judiciary of California. [1] Its membership consists of the Chief Justice of California and six associate justices who are nominated by the Governor of California and appointed after confirmation by the California Commission on Judicial Appointments. [2]
However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada that states are permitted to require people to truthfully state their name when a police officer asks them, and more than half of the states (as well as the District of Columbia ) have enacted some variant of stop and identify statutes requiring ...